Nithiya v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep.By,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02-02-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Nithiya ..Petitioner(s) Vs State of Tamilnadu rep.by, Inspector of Police, Crime Branch CID, Metro wing-I, Chennai.
Cr.No.08/2024.
..Respondent(s) Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS Act, 2023, praying to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the event of her arrest by the respondent in Cr.No.08/2024 on the file of respondent police. For Petitioner(s):
M/S.S.Balasubramanian For Respondent(s):
Ms.J.R.Archana Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468 of IPC r/w Sections 66 & 43 of the IT Act 2000, in Crime No.08 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, working as temporary staff at the Sub-Registrar's office, allegedly colluded with others to tamper with a 1987 registered sale deed to change the owner's name, prompting the case registration in 2021.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person, she has no way connected with the said offence; she is only a temporary worker at the SRO, Tambaram; she has no access with the daily registration and document uploading process; however, she is ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution and submitted that two other accused who played a vital role in tampering the records have already been arrested and released on bail. She further submitted that the investigation in this case is pending. Hence, she opposed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5.Considering the nature of allegations and the overtact attributed against the petitioner and though the investigation in this case is pending, I am of the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions.
6. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on her appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Chenngalpattu, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further conditions:
(a) If the petitioner fails to surrender before the concerned Magistrate within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled;
(b) The sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the application for surety ship (Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019]'. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of identify proofs to ensure their identity;
(c) The petitioner shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation;
(d) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actions against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on anticipatory bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji v. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560];
(e) If the petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act.
02-02-2026 GBI To 1.The Inspector of Police, Crime Branch CID, Metro wing-I, Chennai.
2.The Judicial Magistrate-I, Chenngalpattu.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
K.RAJASEKAR, J.
GBI 02-02-2026